Docket No. 7156
Prefiled Testimony of Robert Michaud
July 27, 2006
Page 1 of 13
1
1.
Q.
Please state your name and address.
2
A.
My name is Robert Michaud. I live at 29 Michaud Drive in Sutton,
3
Vermont.
4
5
2.
6
Q.
How long have you been a resident of the town of Sutton?
A.
I have been a resident of Sutton for 32 years.
Q.
What is your business or occupation?
A.
I own a lighting design and manufacturing business called High Beams,
Q.
Do you hold any positions or offices in the Town of Sutton municipal
7
8
3.
9
10
Ltd.
11
12
4.
13
government?
14
A.
Yes, I am the chair of the Sutton Planning Board and Zoning Board.
Q.
How long have you been a member of the town of Sutton Planning
15
16
5.
17
Commission? How long have you been the chair of that commission?
18
19
20
21
A.
I have been on the Sutton Zoning Board since 1989, and I have been the
chair of the Planning Board since 2001.
Docket No. 7156
Prefiled Testimony of Robert Michaud
July 27, 2006
Page 2 of 13
1
6.
Q.
Are you generally familiar with the petition of UPC Vermont
2
Wind, LLC for a Certificate of Public Good?A.
I am generally familiar with the
3
application and have reviewed some of the application documents which have been filed
4
by UPC on behalf of the application.
5
6
7.
7
the records and minutes of the Town of Sutton Planning Commission related to the Town
8
of Sutton Town Plan?
9
10
Q.
A.
Prior to your provinding this testimony, did you familiarize yourself with
Yes, I reviewed all of the minutes of the Planning commission hearings
with regard to the enactment of the most recent Sutton Town Plan.
11
12
8.
13
drafted by the Town of Sutton Planning Commission and the zoning bylaws which have
14
also been drafted by the Town of Sutton Planning Commission and approved by the
15
Town of Sutton selectboard?
16
Q.
A.
Are you also familiar with the Town Plan and its specific provisions as
Yes, as a member of the Planning Commission I was an active participant
17
in the process of approving the 2005 Town Plan, and was also actively involved in the
18
drafting of the Sutton, Vermont Zoning and Subdivision Regulations, which were revised
19
on August 23, 2005.
20
21
Docket No. 7156
Prefiled Testimony of Robert Michaud
July 27, 2006
Page 3 of 13
1
9.
Q.
In general terms, what are the purposes of the Sutton Town Plan as
2
amended in 2005?
3
A.
Consistent with 24 V.S.A. §4382, the Sutton Town Plan contains a
4
statement of objectives, policies, and programs for the municipality of Sutton to guide the
5
future growth and development of Sutton's lands, public services and facilities and to
6
protect the environment. The plan, which contains a land use plan as provided for in the
7
statutes, sets forth goals and describes both existing land uses and proposed land uses
8
with respect to the Town's forestry, recreation, agricultural, residential, commercial,
9
industrial, public and semi-public and open space lands. The Sutton Town Plan also has a
10
transportation plan, a utilities plan, and a preservation plan with regard to the Town's
11
natural areas and natural resources.
12
13
14
10.
Q.
In general terms, how was the Sutton Town Plan generated?
A.
The Sutton Town Plan was prepared by the Sutton Planning Commission
15
with the assistance of the Northeastern Vermont Development Association. The Sutton
16
Town Plan was also based upon a comprehensive survey which was taken of town
17
property owners. The results of the survey are shown in Section XI as Appendix A to the
18
Town Plan. In many cases, where relevant, the survey results are incorporated into the
19
Town Plan, since the survey results represented an objective manifestation of the Town's
20
property owners with regard to the Town Plan's goals and objectives.
21
Docket No. 7156
Prefiled Testimony of Robert Michaud
July 27, 2006
Page 4 of 13
1
11.
2
the Town of Sutton?
3
Q.
A.
What were the results of the surveys with regard to future development in
As the Town Plan states in Section I, the Town's "Shared Vision of the
4
Future" it is the desire of the Town's citizens that the Town in 2020 look much like the
5
town of Sutton in 2002. In the section entitiled "Summary of Survey Results" on page 6
6
of the Town Plan, the Plan as approved provides as follows:
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
When asked about future development activites,
respondents of the survey preferred that most development
in Sutton 'stay the same.' The only kind of development that
residents would like to see more of is home-based business
development. Increased residential and vacation housing
receieved the least amount of support among the range of
possible development activity. Sutton residents value the
natural environment and resources with surface water,
ground water, and scenic beauty ranking as the three most
important resources to protect. In addition to protecting
natural resources, survey respondents favor efforts to
encourage agricultural (particularly small family farms),
development of a recreation trail on existing public lands,
and preservation and restoration of roadside trees to
enhance the scenic beauty of the town.
The survey results themselves clearly demonstrate that commercial development
24
in Sutton was not favored, and the town's citizens' strong desire was to maintian the rural,
25
agricultural land uses which prevail in Sutton. In general, as stated on page 6 of the Town
26
Plan: "Sutton residents value the natural environment and resources, with surface water,
27
ground water and scenic beauty ranking as the three most important resrouces to protect."
28
29
Docket No. 7156
Prefiled Testimony of Robert Michaud
July 27, 2006
Page 5 of 13
1
12.
2
Town Plan?
3
Q.
A.
To what extent are commercial or industrial activities referenced in the
The Town of Sutton has very little commercial or industrial land uses. As
4
the Town Plan states on page 11, "other than agriculture, maple sugaring, and the King
5
George School, and one saw mill, there is little visible commerce in town."
6
The Town Plan, as one of its "goals" in Section IIIA with regard to "Commerce,"
7
encourages only home-based businesses and the King George School as the only type of
8
commercial activities which would be appropriate for the Town of Sutton.
9
10
13.
11
that vision to the development of wind turbines in the Town of Sutton?
12
Q.
A.
Please describe the Town Plan's "Vision for 2020" and the relationship of
The Town Plan on page 13 under the Section entitled "Proposed Land
13
Uses" states that through the efforts of the Town's citizens and its previous town plans,
14
the Town believes that it has preserved the scenic beauty of its forested ridgelines,
15
highlands, and vistas. The Town also believes that it has stemmed the loss of family
16
farms and has achieved a balance between natural resources-based economic
17
sustainability and growth in a manner which is desired by its residents. The Town Plan
18
states that "this is a strong statement of our vision for the future."
19
With regard to wind energy as a "proposed land use" in the Town of Sutton, the
20
Town Plan in Section III C-7, (page 15) states as follows:
21
22
Wind energy development is a potential industrial activity for a high elevation ridgelines
in the northern portion of the
Docket No. 7156
Prefiled Testimony of Robert Michaud
July 27, 2006
Page 6 of 13
23
24
25
26
27
28
town (Norris Mountain and adjacent summits, and the
higher elevation summits and ridgelines in the Willoughby
State Forest.) However, such development, because of their
visual impact, the accompanying noise, and their potential
impact on wildlife and the environment are not appropriate
for these areas.
The Sutton Town Plan, therefore, in strong, unequivocal terms would find the
development of wind turbines on Norris Mountain and adjacent summits to be wholly
inconsistent with the Sutton Town Plan, and such development would unduly interfere
with the orderly growth of the region, and particularly the goals of the Town of Sutton as
expressed in their Town Plan.
14.
Q.
Are there other sections in the Town Plan which address wind turbines?
A.
Yes. In Section VI, entitled "Preservation Plan," in the "Scenic Features
and Resources" subsection, the Town Plan on page 26 again unequivocally states as
follows with respect to the areas proposed by UPC for wind turbine development:
Scenic protection areas shall include all lands above 2,000
feet in elevation - specifically Norris Mountain and
adjacent summits, and high elevation ridgelines and
summits in the Willoughby State Forest. While the Town of
Sutton will welcome small, suitably sited domestic wind
towers, the Town shall, nevertheless, preserve its
undeveloped high lands and its time honored horizons as a
birthright for our children. Therefore, this Plan
recommends that any development above 2,000 feet in
elevation not exceed 100 feet in height and strongly
discourages the erection of wind towers on lands above
2,000 feet.
Docket No. 7156
Prefiled Testimony of Robert Michaud
July 27, 2006
Page 7 of 13
15.
Q.
What is the purpose of these limitations on developments above 2,000
A.
The purpose is to preserve the scenic vistas which exist particularly in the
feet?
northern half of the Town of Sutton. The Town Plan specifically identifies those areas
proposed by development by UPC as areas of scenic importance, and containing scenic
vistas, and the Plan "strongly discourages" the construction of any wind towers on lands
above 2,000 feet. Nevertheless, the Town Plan does enourage, both in the scenic
resources section and on page 34 in the renewable energy resources section, the use of
"domestic scale renewable energy resources" such as solar, wind, hydro, and wood
heat..."
16.
Q.
Mr. Michaud, let me show you a document which has been marked for
identification as Sutton RM-1 and ask you if this is the most current Town of Sutton
Town Plan which was approved by the Planning Commission, the selectboard, and the
Town citizens.
17.
A.
Exhibit Sutton RM-1 is a copy of the most recently adopted Town Plan.
Q.
Let me show you a document which has been marked for identification as
Exhibit Sutton RM-2 and ask you if you can identify this document for the Board.
A.
Exhibit Sutton RM-2 is a copy of the Town of Sutton, Vermont Zoning
and Subdivision regulations which were originally adopted on March 2, 1976 and most
Docket No. 7156
Prefiled Testimony of Robert Michaud
July 27, 2006
Page 8 of 13
recently revised on August 23, 2005.
18.
Q.
Are you familiar with the proposed locations for the UPC wind turbines?
A.
Yes, I have a general idea of their locations based upon some of the
exhibits submitted with their application, including exhibits such as UPC CRV-10, and
UPC CRV-4. Neverthless, to my knowledge, the exact turbine sites have never been
flagged or identified on the ground, nor have I seen any testimony which would
specifically identify the locations of the proposed turbines.
19.
Q.
In generally, how would you describe the locations where the UPC
turbines are proposed to be located in the Town of Sutton?
A.
In general, as the exhibits demonstrate, the turbines are proposed to be
located on the summits and ridgelines of our higher elevation mountains and in areas
containing numerous wetlands and wildlife areas and, as I have testified to earlier, on
ridgelines containing scenic resources. As a result, these are areas which are not serviced
by public roads and therefore lack direct access without the substantial improvement of
old logging roads or the construction of new roads.
20.
Q.
Under the Town of Sutton zoning bylaws, is the Town divided up
Docket No. 7156
Prefiled Testimony of Robert Michaud
July 27, 2006
Page 9 of 13
into specific land use districts?
A.
The Town, as identified in Section 201 of the Zoning Regulations, is
divided into four zoning districts. These consist of a village district, a residential district,
a rural district, and a woodlands and recreation district.
21.
Q.
In which district are the UPC proposed wind turbines located?
A.
The proposed UPC turbines would be located in the woodlands and
recreation district.
22.
Q.
Let me show you a document which has been marked for identification as
Exhibit Sutton RM-3, and ask you if you can identify this document.
A.
Exhibit Sutton RM-3 is a copy of the town zoning map and, as evidenced
by the exhibit, the are proposed for development by UPC is in the "Woodlands and
Recreation zoning district.
22.
Q.
What is the purpose of this district and what uses are allowed?
A.
As stated in the zoning ordinance on page 10, Table 205.04:
The purpose of the woolands and recreation district is to
protect the natural resources value of lands which are
essentially undeveloped, lack direct access to public roads,
are important for wildlife habitat, have potential for
forestry use, have one or more physical limitations to
development, or include significant natural, recreational, or
scenic resources. No additional community facility services
will be provided in these areas in the future.
Docket No. 7156
Prefiled Testimony of Robert Michaud
July 27, 2006
Page 10 of 13
The only uses allowed in this district are forestry, agricultural, outdoor recreation,
and residential uses on lots containing more than ten acres. Neither commercial nor
industrial uses are permitted uses or conditional uses in this zoning district.
23.
Q.
How would you describe the character of the area in which UPC proposes
to place its wind turbines?
A.
Obviously, on the summits of the mountains proposed to be used by UPC
for its wind turbine development in Sutton, the area is heavily wooded, undeveloped land
and devoid of any structures. The proposed turbines would be located on the highest
elevations of Norris Mountain and the adjacent ridgelines running toward Sheffield,
Vermont with the closest homes located off Underpass Road at the lower elevations and
in the valleys and smaller hills below the proposed turbine sites.
24.
Q.
Let me show you a document which has been marked for identification as
Exhibit Sutton RM-4 and ask you if you are familiar with this document.
A.
Exhibit Sutton RM-4 is a copy of the Northeastern Vermont Development
Association Regional Plan which was adopted by the Regional Planning Commission
Board of Directors on June 29, 2006. I believe the plan is to become effective in two
weeks.
This is the regional plan which covers the Northeast Kingdom region, including
Docket No. 7156
Prefiled Testimony of Robert Michaud
July 27, 2006
Page 11 of 13
the town of Sutton, and is intended to guide future growth and development in the
northeast kingdom region.
25.
Q.
With regard to the regional plan, are there sections in the plan which you
believe relate to the orderly development of the region and the UPC proposal to construct
wind turbines in the Towns of Sutton and Sheffield?
A.
I believe the plan at numerous sections describes the existing region's land
uses and proscribes how the region should be developed in an orderly manner. Initially,
on page 2 of the regional plan under the section entitled "Regional Vision," the plan
states as follows:
Vermont's rural traditions have been better preserved in the
Northeast Kingdom than in other areas of the state. Respect
for individual rights and genuine neighborliness toward
others are values that continue as part of the social fabric
here. The physical landscape has essentially remained
unchanged, with compact village centers surrounded by
working farms and productive forests.
I believe that this language in the regional plan reflects and corresponds with the
Town of Sutton's perception as identified in my earlier testimony and in Exhibit Sutton
RM-1. Both the regional plan and the Sutton Town Plan identify the uniqueness of the
Northeast Kingdom and its citizens' desire to maintain the rural nature of the region for
both current and future citizens.
In fact, in the land use section of the regional plan in the subsection entitled
"Future Land Use and Development Goals" the first two development goals are as
Docket No. 7156
Prefiled Testimony of Robert Michaud
July 27, 2006
Page 12 of 13
follows:
*
Traditional development patterns should be
maintained and new development should be encouraged to
follow these patterns.
*
New development should be compatible with
existing land uses and agree with local plans.
27.
Q.
How does this language, in your opinion, relate to the UPC wind turbine
proposal?
A.
Clearly, the UPC proposal to construct 398-foot wind turbines in largely
undeveloped areas of Sutton would not be consistent with "traditional development
patterns," nor would these large structures be compatible with existing land uses, and, as I
have testified above, they would not agree with and would be contrary to the Town of
Sutton's town plan and zoning regulations.
In addition, in chapter 2 of the regional plan in the section entitled "Energy
Strategy" the regional plan requires that any "new industrial, commercial energy
development" must not only meet the highest standards required by law, but "permitting
authorities must first consider current and historical land use and the culture of the
region, as well as the landowners' rights." Consequently, the regional plan requires
permitting authorities to not only initially consider current and historical land use with
regard to any new industrial commercial energy development, but to also first consider
the culture of the region in which the proposed energy development is to be located.
Sutton's current and historic land use patterns in the locations proposed for development
Docket No. 7156
Prefiled Testimony of Robert Michaud
July 27, 2006
Page 13 of 13
by UPC are totally inconsistent with the UPC proposal and the Sutton town plan which I
believe defines the culture of the region, and certainly the area proposed for this
development.
28.
Q.
Are there other sections of the regional plan which you believe are
relevant to the Public Service Board's review of the UPC proposal?
A.
Yes. In the "Energy Strategy" section of the plan, in the "Introduction"
subsection, the regional planning commission explains in some detail the fact that at
hearings held by the regional planning commission the "vast majority" of the puiblic
"was adamantly opposed" to any language in the regional plan which would support the
construction of wind towers, or support the notion that wind towers should be seen as
beneficial to the Northeast Kingdom region. The citizens in the Northeast Kingdom,
consequently, rejected the notion that wind turbines would contribute to the "orderly
development of the region." This strong negative public response to wind turbines in the
Northeast Kingdom is, in fact, reflected by the Sutton town vote taken on March 2, 2006,
in which the town of Sutton's citizens voted 120 to 23 to oppose the UPC project.